HC Deb 02 August 1956 vol 557 cc1563-5
3. Mr. Allaun

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the publishing firm of D. C. Thomson, of Dundee, Salford and Glasgow, recently prohibited an employee, who was the branch secretary of the National Union of Journalists, from attending their offices even though remaining in their employment; and if he will draw the attention of this firm to the written undertaking it gave to his predecessor in the interest of good industrial relations following the trade dispute of 1952 regarding trade unionism among its workers.

Mr. Carr

I have seen the statement made by the National Union of Journalists on this matter. What the firm said in 1952 was that they would cease to insist on their employees signing an agreement not to belong to a trade union. There is nothing in the union's statement to suggest that the firm have departed from their declared policy.

Mr. Allaun

Is not this a deliberate breach, if not of the letter then of the whole spirit and meaning, of the undertaking given to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour—

Mr. Ellis Smith

And the House.

Mr. Allaun

—by D. C. Thomson on which the unions agreed to a settlement of the dispute? If this is so, can the Minister, in justice, stand aside, and do nothing, encouraging further victimisation in the future?

Mr. Carr

It would be quite incorrect, and I do not believe it can be seriously accepted by anyone in the House, that we are encouraging victimisation. I repeat that the firm gave in writing an undertaking and, as far as the facts disclose, it is not breaking that undertaking. It is easy in these matters to condone or to ask for condemnation, but that does not always result in progress.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Does the Minister appreciate that if this had been the other way round and one worker had sent another to Coventry, there would have been a very big outcry in the country?

Mr. Carr

I am sure that we all deplore intolerance from whatever side it comes, but our system of industrial relations in this country is voluntary and we do not—least of all the trade unions—believe in direct Government interference. I feel certain that that is the right principle on which to conduct industrial relations.

4. Mr. G. M. Thomson

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the action of Messrs. D. C. Thomson and Company Limited, Dundee, in segregating a trade unionist employee from any contact with his fellow workers is a breach of the International Labour Office conventions to which Her Majesty's Government are signatories; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Carr

I understand that the employee referred to is no longer with Messrs. Thomson and Company Limited. No question, therefore, arises of my taking any action in relation to this matter. I am not in a position to express an opinion as to whether anything occurred while he was in their employment which could be said to be contrary to an International Labour Office Convention.

Mr. Thomson

Is the Minister aware that this trade unionist is a disabled ex-Service man who honoured the agreement not to be a trade unionist as long as that written document was in force but who exercised the right obtained, partly by the House, to join a trade union when the document was withdrawn? Does it not make a mockery of the undertaking given by the firm to the Government and to the House, as well as to the trade unions who were a party to the dispute, if it isolates a trade unionist in this way? Do the Government intend to sit back and accept this breach of the undertaking without further action?

Mr. Carr

As I said in reply to a supplementary on the last Question, I do not believe that direct Government intervention can serve any useful purpose in this matter. I repeat that we deplore intolerance in this sort of affair, wherever it occurs.

Mr. Fenner Brockway

Will the Minister reconsider this matter? Does he regard it as good enough that when a firm has given an undertaking that it will employ trade unionists, it puts into action such provisions that they are even excluded from meeting their fellow workers?

Sir T. Moore

What about the men sent to Coventry?

Mr. Brockway

Is not that an outrage against ordinary human liberty? Surely the Government cannot stand aside and do nothing whatever?

Forward to